Cyclists riding on footpaths - have you nearly hit one?

Forums › Off topic › Cyclists riding on footpaths - have you nearly hit one?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#639380 12-Jun-2012 01:30

raytaylor: I have a narrow driveway - the neighbours built tall fences on both sides
So i back into the driveway, so i am driving forward and can easily see in front of me when i am leaving onto the road.

Our driveway is not that narrow, but we also back into it specifically so that we can drive out forwards. There is much more visibility to the footpath reversing *into* the driveway than there is reversing *out* of it so it just makes sense. In my opinion everyone should be doing this where practical.

We have a primary school at the end of the road and therefore a lot of foot traffic. Because its a primary school that also means an especially high number of parents with little kids in tow. Little kids are dumb - they run off on their own no matter what their parents say, or how hard parents try to hold on to them. They are especially hard to spot, being so small, and that makes them all just accidents waiting to happen. It seems silly not to take every reasonable precaution to prevent those accidents.

Cars can be so quiet these days - electric or hybrids virtually silent - so it can also be a lot harder for pedestrians to know when a car is approaching. Pedestrians really need to concentrate and watch for drivers too. They shouldnt walk about oblivous - it is a 'shared' space after all...

On that note, pedestrians and joggers really need to shape up a bit too. Far too many are seen walking around, or jogging, with iPods and hearing nothing of their surroundings. I recall someone getting hit by a car and killed recently when stepping on to a road and into traffic in the city. It could have just as easily been someone walking into a car exiting a driveway. Sure, the driver should be careful - but the pedestrian, who potentially has the most to lose, should also be paying attention.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#639381 12-Jun-2012 01:43

mattwnz:
There are dangers with backing into a driveway too, one being if you have kids, who may run out to see you as you come home. I remember seeing TV ads about the dangers of reversing a number of years ago. I think they should look at making reversing alerts, and cameras on SUVs mandatory in the future.

mattwnz:
There are dangers with backing into a driveway too, one being if you have kids, who may run out to see you as you come home.

if your kids are running out on to the driveway when you come home, then you need to educate them pretty quickly. If education isnt going to stop them doing that, then install a fence and/or gate. I have done both.

if you cant put in a fence, then stop your car *before* you drive into the driveway, get out if you have to, and make sure the kids are safe before proceeding.

reversing cameras and alerts wont stop a kid from running out the door, onto the driveway, into your path. a reversing camera won't see around corners when you are backing out the drive. a reversing camera will probably give drivers a false sense of security and may not save as many accidents as you might think. dont rely entirely on technology - use it in *addition* to everything else you should be doing!

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

geek4me

843 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#639438 12-Jun-2012 09:02

Regs: On that note, pedestrians and joggers really need to shape up a bit too. Far too many are seen walking around, or jogging, with iPods and hearing nothing of their surroundings. I recall someone getting hit by a car and killed recently when stepping on to a road and into traffic in the city. It could have just as easily been someone walking into a car exiting a driveway. Sure, the driver should be careful - but the pedestrian, who potentially has the most to lose, should also be paying attention.

This reminds me of the school kid who was hit by a train at Silverstream near Upper Hutt a few years ago. I believe he was not paying attention while listening to music when he crossed the tracks with bells ringing.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#640016 13-Jun-2012 09:09

I'd like to comment on what Simplestuff said a few days ago:

simplestuff:

Something else of interest Different topic
White Diamond markers on the road

It warns a driver that there is a pedestrian crossing ahead, and they are placed at a distance from the crossing to enable a vehicle to stop safetly if the driver sees a padestrian waiting to cross. If the driver sees a padestrian waiting to cross before he/she passess over the white diamond he/she must stop and let the pedestrian cross. If already past the diamond and a pedestrian approaches the crossing he/she should stop if can stop saftely.
For the pedestrian : if they see a car beyond the diamond they can assume the driver of the appropaching car will be able to stop safetly to let them cross, but they should not not step onto the road until they are sure they driver is stopping. If the perdestrain sees the car is inside the diamond ( has already past the diamond) the pedestrian should wait until the car has passed before stepping onto the road, or step onto the road only if the car has stopped to let them past. liabilty: If a pedesrtain steps onto the road after a car has passed the diamond, it is the pedestrian who is a at fault if hit by the car. If a pedestrian is hit by a car that was outside the diamond when they stepped onto the road, the car is at fault.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_white_diamond_on_the_road_mean#ixzz1xSEgcG9H
I wonder how many pedestrians are aware of this. I think it applies to NZ

This is a myth (at least in New Zealand) and it doesn't even make sense. If the diamond was there to indicate to the pedestrian when they can and when they can't step out in front of a car, then it would be a sign on the side of the road so that the pedestrian can see it, not paint on the road 50m-100m from the pedestrian.

The diamond is there purely to tell the driver that there is a pedestrian crossing.

At the crossing nearest to where I live, neither of the diamonds is visible from the crossing: one is around a corner and the other is several hundred metres away and halfway down a hill (it's further away because of an intersection).

The roadcode says: "Don't step out suddenly onto a pedestrian crossing if any vehicles are so close to the crossing that they cannot stop." No mention of diamonds.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#640044 13-Jun-2012 10:06

The diamonds are positioned to allow approximately a 2 second perception/reaction time for the driver + stopping distance. In other words if a person steps out on the crossing before a car reaches the diamond the car driver should be easily able to stop in time.

If it can be seen by the pedestrian then that's perhaps another marker for them to gauge if they are allowing enough time to enable a car to stop or not, but other than that you are correct it has nothing to do with pedestrians.

Remember also the law changed. Drivers must now give way to pedestrians who are on the crossing, or who are "obviously waiting to cross it"...I get annoyed at times with the latter one because I stop when someone or a group appears to be waiting to cross, only to discover they are just hanging out there for no particular reason...Grrr

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#640066 13-Jun-2012 10:38

scuwp: The diamonds are positioned to allow approximately a 2 second perception/reaction time for the driver + stopping distance. In other words if a person steps out on the crossing before a car reaches the diamond the car driver should be easily able to stop in time.

If it can be seen by the pedestrian then that's perhaps another marker for them to gauge if they are allowing enough time to enable a car to stop or not, but other than that you are correct it has nothing to do with pedestrians.

Remember also the law changed. Drivers must now give way to pedestrians who are on the crossing, or who are "obviously waiting to cross it"...I get annoyed at times with the latter one because I stop when someone or a group appears to be waiting to cross, only to discover they are just hanging out there for no particular reason...Grrr

If the person waiting at the crossing is not standing looking at what traffic is coming I ignore them. If they want to cross they shouldn't be turning around or talking or distracted, etc. I just keep on going.

Similarly I don't give cyclists riding across a pedestrian crossing the time of day either. If they've stopped and dismounted I will stop and let them cross the crossing, as they are a pedestrian. Otherwise, tough.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#640089 13-Jun-2012 11:01

keewee01:
Similarly I don't give cyclists riding across a pedestrian crossing the time of day either. If they've stopped and dismounted I will stop and let them cross the crossing, as they are a pedestrian. Otherwise, tough.

Do you run them over?

Or is it a game of chicken?

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

JonnyCam

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#640171 13-Jun-2012 12:32

If the person waiting at the crossing is not standing looking at what traffic is coming I ignore them. If they want to cross they shouldn't be turning around or talking or distracted, etc.

You say people waiting at the side of road to cross on a pedestrian crossing are not entitled to turn their heads, or talk to people?

So you ignore these people, and one day hit & kill someone - great.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#640172 13-Jun-2012 12:38

Just for arguments sake what if cars were designed in such a way that the potential injuries for a car driver hitting a pedestrian were about the same for both parties?

Wouldn't that make everybody safer?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#640181 13-Jun-2012 13:02

crackrdbycracku: Just for arguments sake what if cars were designed in such a way that the potential injuries for a car driver hitting a pedestrian were about the same for both parties?

Wouldn't that make everybody safer?

Interesting. I can just imagine a massive sledge hammer on a highly compressed spring under the dashboard waiting to take out the drivers legs, and then one from the roof to smash your head in. Maybe a spike that comes out of the steering wheel...I think there is a video game idea in that. Lol

I would bet that crashes would be eliminated overnight.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#640190 13-Jun-2012 13:26

scuwp:
crackrdbycracku: Just for arguments sake what if cars were designed in such a way that the potential injuries for a car driver hitting a pedestrian were about the same for both parties?

Wouldn't that make everybody safer?

Interesting. I can just imagine a massive sledge hammer on a highly compressed spring under the dashboard waiting to take out the drivers legs, and then one from the roof to smash your head in. Maybe a spike that comes out of the steering wheel...I think there is a video game idea in that. Lol

I would bet that crashes would be eliminated overnight.

I actually say a documentary once about 1950's car design and how dangerous it was. One thing that was specifically mentioned in a particular model was the spike coming out from the centre of the steering wheel. Oh, yeah and no seat belts.

My point isn't entirely fatuous. As a car driver you are going to come off better in a crash with someone not in a car, say a cyclist or ped or whatever. Surely, that means you have a greater responsibility? Maybe this should be legally recognised?

If a hunter mistakenly shoots someone the 'Well, they are in a hunting area so they are partly responsible' argument usually doesn't get far.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#640192 13-Jun-2012 13:35

geek4me:
Regs: On that note, pedestrians and joggers really need to shape up a bit too.? Far too many are seen walking around, or jogging,?with iPods and hearing nothing of their surroundings.? I recall someone getting hit by a car and killed recently when stepping on to a road and into traffic in the city.? It could have just as easily been someone walking into a car exiting a driveway.? Sure, the driver should be careful?- but the pedestrian, who potentially has the most to lose, should also be paying attention.

This reminds me of the school kid who was hit by a train at Silverstream near Upper Hutt a few years ago. I believe he was not paying attention while listening to music when he crossed the tracks with bells ringing.

There have been several that have died at that station, and ones nearby. They have now installed special automated gates to prevent it from happening, and I don't know if anyone has died since they were installed. I have known two people have have been killed at railway crossovers, one who was listening to music, and one who allegedly tried to beat the train.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#640195 13-Jun-2012 13:44

crackrdbycracku: I actually say a documentary once about 1950's car design and how dangerous it was. One thing that was specifically mentioned in a particular model was the spike coming out from the centre of the steering wheel. Oh, yeah and no seat belts.

My point isn't entirely fatuous. As a car driver you are going to come off better in a crash with someone not in a car, say a cyclist or ped or whatever. Surely, that means you have a greater responsibility? Maybe this should be legally recognised?

If a hunter mistakenly shoots someone the 'Well, they are in a hunting area so they are partly responsible' argument usually doesn't get far.

Legally recognised? This would not work. I spend a great deal of time in a country where bikes are legally recognised as being always in the right. This has encouraged incredibly dangerous behaviour by bike riders, where it is assumed that being in the right will mean they are protected at all times.

I agree, there are car drivers out there who do think they own the road, but let's be honest and admit that pedestrians and bike rider also have some of these within their ranks.

All users should be equally responsible.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#640229 13-Jun-2012 14:39

JonnyCam:

If the person waiting at the crossing is not standing looking at what traffic is coming I ignore them. If they want to cross they shouldn't be turning around or talking or distracted, etc.

You say people waiting at the side of road to cross on a pedestrian crossing are not entitled to turn their heads, or talk to people?

So you ignore these people, and one day hit & kill someone - great.

WOW - you have crystal ball. I'm so happy for you! :p

Yes people arriving at a crossing or waiting to cross can turn their heads and/or talk to other people - but if they are at a crossing they should be paying more attention to the road that those other activities. Period.

If motorists have to pay full attention to the roads, why should pedestrians not be showing the same attention when waiting to cross. If someone is standing there but not about to cross because they don't realise I am stopping for them, then I will usually carry on across the crossing rather than coming to a complete stop. Why? Because I got utterly sick of the number of times I did stop only to find people were having such a good chat with others they decided to not cross the road, or were so distracted that they hadn't realised cars had stopped for them to cross, or it was people who'd just wandered close to the crossing (never intending to cross) and had stopped for a chat! (There is one local crossing in particular where this is a very, very, very frequent occurrence due to a nearby cafes large encroachment onto the footpath which creates a bottle neck - 2 out of 3 times I stopped it would be for people never intending to cross!)

If someone is waiting and watching traffic or is already heading to the crossing I stop and let them cross completely (as you are meant to, but most people don't - I wait until they've stepped off the crossing before starting off again). I see very few others doing that - most vehicles start moving again as soon as the person crossing is clear the car. I have total respect for pedestrians, but I have not got time for the time wasters.

When I am a pedestrian heading towards a crossing I keep and eye out on the traffic and try to make eye contract with the driver closest the cross so they know I'm heading their way and I know they've seen me. It is respectful and a "two-way-street". Several time I've been crossing on a pedestrian crossing and been most of the way across only to narrowly miss being hit by inattentive drivers who've not realised they'd come to a crossing or that someone was on the crossing. It is about all road users (INCLUDING pedestrians) respecting other users.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#640230 13-Jun-2012 14:42

Learn to walk, learn to ride, learn to drive.

At the very least it'll give you an insight, as a driver, of how cyclists and pedestrians act/react. And vice-versa

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9